Centia MCP Server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

getConstraint

Obtain constraint details for a given database schema and table. Optionally specify a constraint name to filter results.

Instructions

Get constraint(s).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "schema": "<schema>",
      "table": "<table>"
    },
    "name": "getConstraint"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`schema`	Yes	Schema name
`table`	Yes	Table name
`constraint`	No	Constraint name(s)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.9May 26, 2026

TDQS

C2/5.0

Behavior1/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to indicate that the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, or what happens when a constraint is not found. The description offers no behavioral information.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely short but at the expense of being under-specifying. It is not a complete sentence and omits crucial details, making it insufficiently informative despite its brevity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more context about return values, behavior, and usage. It fails to do so, leaving the agent guessing about the tool's functionality.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It could have clarified that the constraint parameter is optional, but it does not.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Get constraint(s)' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name without adding any context. It does not distinguish the tool from siblings like getTable or getColumn, beyond the resource name, but the description itself provides no differentiation criteria.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like deleteConstraint or postConstraint. The description lacks any context about appropriate scenarios or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.